European Commission Decision at Odds with International Arbitration Practice

Many readers will be familiar with the Spanish renewables saga which centers on changes made by Spain to a renewable energy support scheme in 2007, which led to over 50 investment treaty arbitrations, including a number brought by Japanese investors. The European Commission has now invoked state aid to justify the non-payment of the resulting awards against Spain.

The EU courts have long refused the enforcement of these Spanish awards where they are held by EU investors on the basis that arbitration provision in intra-EU investment treaties (i.e., treaties between EU member states) are incompatible with EU law. Essentially, the European Court of Justice (CJEU) has found that it was for the EU courts to decide questions of EU law that might arise in an investment treaty dispute between an EU state and an EU investor, which should not be left to arbitrators acting under investment treaties and outside the EU legal system. Hence, in the seminal Achmea case, they have found that arbitration agreements in intra-EU investment treaties, and any awards rendered thereon, are invalid.

Consistent with that approach, the European Commission has now determined that payment of an arbitration award requiring Spain to pay €101 million to two European entities in the Antin Infrastructure Group (incorporated in the Netherlands and Luxembourg respectively) would constitute unlawful state aid under EU rules. Following the principle established by the CJEU in Achmea and subsequently in Komstroy, under EU law the Antin arbitral award contravenes EU law, accordingly the European Commission has further concluded that payment of the award by Spain would improperly favor Antin and therefore distort competition in the European Union.

This puts EU law further at odds with international arbitration law and practice. Courts in Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States have shown themselves ready to enforce such awards notwithstanding the Achmea line of cases. Essentially these courts have concluded that Spain should be held to its agreement to arbitrate disputes with EU investors given in intra-EU investment treaties even though the European courts have subsequently found that such consent to arbitrate violates EU law. These courts have therefore ignored Achmea, leading to a number of high profile and novel enforcement battles, which are likely to continue for some time.

This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。

© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.

European Commission Decision at Odds with International Arbitration Practice

Many readers will be familiar with the Spanish renewables saga which centers on changes made by Spain to a renewable energy support scheme in 2007, which led to over 50 investment treaty arbitrations, including a number brought by Japanese investors. The European Commission has now invoked state aid to justify the non-payment of the resulting awards against Spain.

The EU courts have long refused the enforcement of these Spanish awards where they are held by EU investors on the basis that arbitration provision in intra-EU investment treaties (i.e., treaties between EU member states) are incompatible with EU law. Essentially, the European Court of Justice (CJEU) has found that it was for the EU courts to decide questions of EU law that might arise in an investment treaty dispute between an EU state and an EU investor, which should not be left to arbitrators acting under investment treaties and outside the EU legal system. Hence, in the seminal Achmea case, they have found that arbitration agreements in intra-EU investment treaties, and any awards rendered thereon, are invalid.

Consistent with that approach, the European Commission has now determined that payment of an arbitration award requiring Spain to pay €101 million to two European entities in the Antin Infrastructure Group (incorporated in the Netherlands and Luxembourg respectively) would constitute unlawful state aid under EU rules. Following the principle established by the CJEU in Achmea and subsequently in Komstroy, under EU law the Antin arbitral award contravenes EU law, accordingly the European Commission has further concluded that payment of the award by Spain would improperly favor Antin and therefore distort competition in the European Union.

This puts EU law further at odds with international arbitration law and practice. Courts in Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States have shown themselves ready to enforce such awards notwithstanding the Achmea line of cases. Essentially these courts have concluded that Spain should be held to its agreement to arbitrate disputes with EU investors given in intra-EU investment treaties even though the European courts have subsequently found that such consent to arbitrate violates EU law. These courts have therefore ignored Achmea, leading to a number of high profile and novel enforcement battles, which are likely to continue for some time.

This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。

© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.

News and Insights

Event

Partner Terri Mascherin to Speak at Illinois State Bar Association Seminar on Negotiation Ethics

On November 11, Partner Terri Mascherin will join a faculty panel for the Illinois State Bar Association (ISBA) continuing legal education (CLE) seminar “Negotiation Ethics: Winning Without Selling Your Soul.”

November 11, 2026

Publications

Before You Sign: Key Contract Provisions for Tribes Considering Data Center Developments, ICT

Grace Signorelli-Cassady of Jenner & Block’s Native American Law Practice authored an opinion piece for ICT examining key contract provisions tribes should consider when approached about data center developments.

November 5, 2026

Publications

Jon Skladany and Kayvan Sadeghi Quoted on Fintech Investigation Readiness in Law360

Jenner & Block Partners Jon Skladany and Kayvan Sadeghi were quoted in a Law360 article examining how crypto and fintech companies are preparing for heightened congressional oversight following the 2026 midterm elections.

November 5, 2026

Publications

Partner Emily Loeb Discusses What the 2026 Midterms Mean for Congressional Oversight in the Financial Times

Partner Emily Loeb, co-chair of Jenner & Block’s Congressional Investigations Practice, was quoted in the Financial Times in an article examining how companies are preparing for congressional oversight as the new Congress takes shape following the 2026 midterm elections.

November 4, 2026

Publications

Congressional Oversight after Trump v. United States, Lawfare

Special Counsel David Manners-Weber authored an article for Lawfare examining how the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Trump v. United States may weaken Congress’s ability to investigate the executive branch.

 

November 2, 2026

Publications

In Politico, Partner Emily Loeb Discusses How Companies Are Preparing for Congressional Oversight 

Partner Emily Loeb was spoke with Politico for a story examining how companies are preparing for heightened congressional oversight, particularly those that could become the focus of investigations centered on affordability and accountability. 

 

October 29, 2026